In a rather Capt Obvious sort of way, I think the main issue is that you see wilderness initiatives as a threat to your livelihood. People on this thread see wilderness/forest access as a threat to our favorite past time and/or way of life. I'm on the side of reducing access to wilderness areas and creating more where possible simply because I spend 50-60-70 days or parts of days a year on public land recreating of some sort. If you count my job, its alot higher than that. Without public land, I'm not entirely sure what I'd be doing both professionally and privately.
I am also not advocating for making all public lands restricted access. Without public access we wouldn't have the national park system, WMU/GMU/WMA, etc. I get it. But to say we need to increase access, at least on existing wilderness areas, I'm not in. In my mind, we don't need more roads through our NF - we have enough already. We don't need a road every square mile.
In addition, a difference exists between access and experiencing an area. Experiencing an area is pretty limited when your peering through a window of your car or off the back of an ATV. If people want to experience a place, walk/hike into it, spend time in it. You don't need a road for that; all you need is public access. You also don't need to hike 5 miles over hill and dale.
Or take a horse. I've seen trails in the Smokys severely damaged by horses but can live with the trade-off as long as excesses don't occur.
Bottom line - if you'd approach the whole wilderness/BHA thing from a threat to your livelihood viewpoint, most people here would be sympathetic. Innuendo, smoke and mirrors, only raises suspicion and questions motive.
